<nettime> LOLZ. LSDZ, NSAZ, BRICZ, ARTZ digest [x4: jernej, newmedia, valle]

[nettime's_geowanker <nettime@kein.org>]

RE: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet
     "Jernej Amon Prodnik" <jernej.prodnik@gmail.com>
     Newmedia@aol.com
     Eduardo Valle <dudavalle@hotmail.com>
RE: OFFLIST Re: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet
     Eduardo Valle <dudavalle@hotmail.com>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Jernej Amon Prodnik" <jernej.prodnik@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:04:02 +0100

It's still interesting to read something as stupid as calling Wallerstein
stupid (most of all, stupid because he doesn't consider the Internet and the
complete and radical change it supposedly brought about, lol).

A nice summary that, Eduardo.

Jernej

     -----Original Message-----
     From: nettime-l-bounces@mail.kein.org
     [mailto:nettime-l-bounces@mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo Valle
     Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:55 AM
     To: nettime-l@mail.kein.org
     Subject: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet


     Geopolitics and internet 

     Mark,

     You must have in mind some things:

<...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Newmedia@aol.com
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:04:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet

Duda:
 
> You must have in mind some things:

Yes, a few things . . .  <g>
 
> a) Technology is not neutral and that's no difference 
> in Digital Technology and Internet

ALL technology has a *bias*  (particularly, starting with language) --
which does not mean that those who  "use" the technology understand what
this BIAS might be, since few people (even  today) think in terms of
technological environments or the ways that they shape  and define our
behaviors and attitudes.
 
Yes, Plato was concerned that alphabetic writing would radically change the
human capacity to REMEMBER and he was correct!  But how many on this list,
including the "fans"of the Pre-Socratics, have read Eric Havelock's  
"Preface to Plato"?
 
> b) Merchant Order and Cities, putting things on a 
> historical perspective in geopolitical terms

It's important the list of technologies you cite ends with the "New York --
electric engine" (i.e. Edison and Tesla) and "Los Angeles -- the microchip"
(although, this was actually "Silicon Valley," not LA, while noting that
the  "customer" was the post-Sputnik "space race," including both
communications  satellites and ICBMs, which was certainly centered in
SoCal, w/ Lockheed et  al.)
 
So, what are the BIASES of *electricity* and *silicon* and what did  they
PROVOKE in *cultural* terms?  What happens to people when they  start
launching satellites into orbit?  How does this change our perception  of
what it means to be "global"?
 
Without "answers" to these questions (or for that matter, without even
understanding the importance of the questions), you will spend a lot of
time  running in circles chasing your own tail and never really get
anywhere  -- burdened with the *biases* of earlier technologies!
 
> c) Second about the shift of paradigm in the order city 
> to still maintain geopolitical control
 
Google was an offshoot of the NSA -- based on the intelligence community's
need for a "database" that could deal with an unlimited amount of
"unstructured"  data (i.e. they paid for the development of Big Table)
followed by the  impulse to be able to "watch" the real-time stream of
*here comes everyone*  "questions.
 
But that doesn't mean that "Uncle Google" (or those at Ft. Meade getting
the real-time feed) either know what to do with it or what its wider
implications might mean.  
 
Yes, if "ebola" breaks out in Wichita, then the NSA will quickly know that
people are Googling strange questions about blood coming out of their
orifices  but that's hardly a sophisticated form of "control" of anything
(including  people's orifices)!
 
> d) how the geopolitical control is related to enterprises 
> each one dominating one field related to the geopolitical 
> control and the digital condition

No.  None of companies  you mention -- many of which I know quite well --
are in CONTROL of anything  other than the *forms* they generate and,
ultimately, the influence these forms  have on the wider technological
environment.  They are, if you will, the  technological *environment*
reproducing itself -- as if there were no humans  involved.
 
The "semiotics" of Apple is SATANIC, for instance, since the name "Apple"
and the symbol of the fruit w/ a bite taken out is deliberately lifted from
Genesis and the "temptation" of EVE by the serpent.  Does that mean that
Steve Jobs was promoting the *devil* or (more likely) that he was promoting
the  FAUSTIAN BARGAIN implied by our inclination to "think different"?
 
Take enough LSD and you meet the *devil*?  What's "controlling"  what?
 
> STUPID is disconsider history and not know that 
> history is repeating itself.

Yes.  It is STUPID to not  consider what we have already learned.  It is
also *stupid* to only  consider history as a LINEAR "progression" (i.e.
18th century book-based  thinking), when *electricity* pushed us into
thinking in "all around" terms 150+  years ago (i.e the "electric" origins
of "social" science).  
 
But that doesn't mean that using the "geo-political" (i.e. mostly  
"geographical") frame is the best one or, given its own origins and
historic  context, that it is really informed by what has been learned 
in the past century about society and its *formative* relationship with 
technology!
 
The EAR replaced the EYE a long time ago!  So, what happens when the  HAND
replaces the EAR?  (And, if that question doesn't make any sense to  you,
then what do you "know" about the world we live in?)

Eric McLuhan asserts that we are now living in "next" Renaissance, a
repeating pattern with roughly 400 year "cycles,"  If he's right, then what
is being RE-BORN (or re-learned) . . . ??
 
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn NY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Eduardo Valle <dudavalle@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:50:51 +0000

Rethoric ...
Nasdaq is going on well , i wonder Why and where they are located. Why CERN
is not in ?frica ?  When the Imperium shifts to the hiperimperium.

XX                                          XXI

Imperium                                HiperImperium


It is not because communication is changing that reality is changing , but
there Will always be some REST for the REST of the World. information is
not knowledge.  The people that sells bits dont care about the bits, they
just want to sell machines to be more precise nowadays mobile machine$$$$$.

I am Still using my 5 senses ...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Eduardo Valle <dudavalle@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: OFFLIST Re: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:48:58 +0000

In Liverpool i was presenting a Geopolitical analysis of Contemporary Art
and Electronic Art  inside of what i called the Web of Art and their 14
instances. I was analysing only 3 instances: the artists, the fairs and the
collectors and they were still on the same geopolitical pattern.

China was rising and so the BRICS because of lack of infra structure, need
of expansion of capitalism and cheap labor force , but we all know where
the headquarters and CEOs are located...

You were saying that communication is changing everything and if the
spectrum is few, how can they even talk ...

So here you have some facts that  reality is not really changing in terms
of geopolitical power i will send some conceptual maps from my presentation
in Liverpool.

 <...>

     From: Newmedia@aol.com
     Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:46:48 -0500
     Subject: Re: OFFLIST Re: <nettime> Geopolitics and Internet

     Duda:
      
     Sorry -- how do you explain the rise of CHINA in "geopolitical"
     terms (i.e.  a development which was completely missed by the
     geopoliticists)?
      
     Why would changes in communications make "problems" go away?
      
     And, "communication" isn't about spectrum (which is a
     machine-to-machine parameter) but instead about how *people*
     actually TALK to each other!
      
     I wasn't there, so what did you PROVE in Liverpool . . . ?? <g>
      
     Mark
      
     In a message dated 2/19/2013 1:08:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
     dudavalle@hotmail.com writes:

          In geopolitical terms, NO. And this was proved in my
          presentation in Liverpool in relation to Art. 
      <...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org